>>39
"Socialism doesn't work"??
Tell that to most of the first world. Their "people" (sorry for what to some is a vile obcenity), are better off than Americans by every measure.
"Caring...sensitive...compassionate"?
Good sir, you mistake me. A worker who is ill paid, ill housed, ill educated or just plain ill--is by definition not a fully productive worker. Those who for valid reason cannot work I'm sure you'll agree are not under disscusion, so lets look at this from another angle. Sets.
Set One=total work force. Subsets=working and not working. The working set I've replied to. Not working breaks out into two subsets=willing to work and not willing to work. Willing to work have the motivation but lack the job. Not willing to work lack the motivation. The willing to work but lack the job, that's easy solved (hint, it's one of the reasons FOR a government). So, at last, we come to the object of your diatribe. Not willing to work.
I agree. Lazy Bastards, one and all, but to review:
A sub set of a sub set of a sub set? Math makes my head hurt but it seems to me that the cant you rant (sorry) is based on at best selective data.
Your Serve.